Page 1979 - Week 07 - Thursday, 23 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
certainly can be an efficient method of equitably distributing many of the goods and services to society. This legislation leaves out that that is what it does. But you can bet that is what will happen because the decisions the planners make not only affect the physical shape of our society and our suburbs, they also affect who gets what, who lives where and whether they can afford to. So I would like to see it spelt out.
Even with these obvious shortcomings, the second major concern I have with the objects clause is that there is no obligation on decision makers to either apply or have greater regard for the objects of the act. This contrasts with other jurisdictions. In New South Wales, for instance, section 3 of the Water Management Act states that one of the objects of the act is to “apply the principles of ecologically sustainable development”. You would expect that in a water act, wouldn’t you?
There are other examples which the government could have drawn upon if it was really committed to implementing best practice social and environmental planning legislation. In short, this bill should contain a clause which provides that all persons involved in the administration of this act should exercise their functions under this act in a manner that gives effect to the sustainability objectives of this act. It should be remembered that the words as they exist now are “giving effect to its object in a way that gives effect to sustainability principles”. I still do not know what that means. The objects clause should be a relevant consideration for decision makers rather than mere window dressing, which is what I fear it will become.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo) (4.54): I will deal first with clause 47. I think it is pretty good. It says:
The object of the territory plan is to ensure, in a manner not inconsistent with the national capital plan, the planning and development of the ACT provide the people of the ACT with an attractive, safe and efficient environment in which to live, work and have their recreation.
You can be as broad as you like with objects clauses. What I see as being attractive is going to be different from what Dr Foskey, Mr Barr or other people see as being attractive. I do not think we should try and over-analyse objects clauses because I think it is dangerous when they become too important in any interpretive process. I think they are there to set a broad framework and to give you a little bit of an idea of what it is about, but if we try and incorporate everything we want and then give a lot of weight to it, it takes away from the substantive clauses which actually do affect how things are done. I think they are much more important regarding whether this ends up being a good bill and whether we end up having a better or worse planning system as a result. I do not support Dr Foskey’s objections. The terms of clause 47 seem to me to be reasonable. I think it is pretty hard to object to. I take the point that it is broad but I think it probably should be.
In relation to clause 48, Dr Foskey should be happy that it is giving effect to sustainability principles. Perhaps it is the case that the wording could be a little better but I do not think it makes any real difference. I think both these clauses get the point across that essentially this act is about making Canberra a good place in which to live and getting good development outcomes. We should be giving effect to sustainability principles. I think this covers it, so we have no problem with clauses 47 and 48.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .